Barry Jenning Murdered for 911

Originally posted by Sean48
WOW Dave, you used to present decent arguements.

Now you moved to Stage 3 of de-Bunking

3. When losing a arguement , insult and group with a far fetched theory to
bring attention from the current topic.

On the contrary, I am trying to make the point I'm been trying to make all along. Up until now, the truthers have religiously stuck to the belief
that the 9/11 debate was populated by three types of people...

a) rationally thinking people who see irregularities in the explanation we've been given, and are demanding better answers

b) people who have an ulterior motive to conceal or limit debate on what really happened on 9/11

c) people who are aither too lazy, or too afraid, to question any of the material we've been given by the gov't

I am attempting to point out that regardless of whether the above is true, there definitely is a fourth group: d) people who accept the material
these 9/11 conspiracy web sites are putting out at face value.

This anti-evil guy who started this thread got this "Barry Jennings was murdered to keep him quiet" bit from those very conspiracy web sites
(namely, from a video produced by the same con artists who made Loose Change), and it's obvious that he's not considering his material rationally,
and it's obvious he doesn't subscribe to the material the gov't is giving us. Therefore, does this mean he's working with the people attempting
to hide the truth?

The very moment you acknowledge that there really are people out there who'll believe admittedly stupid claims these conspiracy web sites are
churning out, it will mean that you're AGREEING with me that these web sites ARE churning out stupid claims, and it will be the beginning of the end
of your own conspriacy theories. I suggest you think your response through carefully.

I love how you think you are so smart and observant, yet you COMPLETELY and CONVENIENTLY overlook the part of his testimony that blows your "bad
health" argument out the window. Typical.

He would have injured his head, neck and back, certainly, and probably his pelvis, and I can even see how he could have injured his elbows, when he
was blown backwards. How would he have injured his *knees* from being blown backwards?

If there's something you believe I'm overlooking here, then you must know something special about Barry Jenning's anatomy that I don't.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So does this mean that Anti-evil is really a secret gov't disinformation agent planting absurd conspriacy claims to discredit the rest of you? This
IS the reason your side is using to account for all the other goofball claims of "lasers from outer space", "nukes in the basement", and
"hologram airplanes", isn't it?

My side? Which side is that? Who else is on it with me? The only thing I am on the side of is truth. If you want to just make up
arguments to have with some non-existent group of people collectively worthy of your derision, do not reply to me when doing so.

Or...to put it another way...

DO NOT USE MY POST AS AN EXCUSE TO JUST RIDICULE. I never said any of the things you are speaking of so go find someone else to bounce off of if you
cannot think for yourself.

I love how you think you are so smart and observant, yet you COMPLETELY and CONVENIENTLY overlook the part of his testimony that blows your "bad
health" argument out the window. Typical.

He would have injured his head, neck and back, certainly, and probably his pelvis, and I can even see how he could have injured his elbows, when he
was blown backwards. How would he have injured his *knees* from being blown backwards?

If there's something you believe I'm overlooking here, then you must know something special about Barry Jenning's anatomy that I don't.

How about the fact that you have no idea how he was blown back, how he landed, and what parts of his body suffered the most impact trauma in the
situation...and yet...you can tell us exactly what he should have hurt?

How about logic and facts? Think you might be overlooking any of them? You are really losing your touch.

On the contrary, I am trying to make the point I'm been trying to make all along. Up until now, the truthers have religiously stuck to the
belief that the 9/11 debate was populated by three types of people...

a) rationally thinking people who see irregularities in the explanation we've been given, and are demanding better answers

Are you ready to admit that you have ridiculed and stomped all over this group too? Are you saying that this particular demographic is safe from the
'twoofer' slurs and the unprovoked insults?

There's a search function on ATS.

As for two and two making five, as you put it, there are many who are doing the math - and coming up with four - but are looking at all the media and
the various official releases and seeing that we really should believe that it's 'five'. We're just not sure what to make of that.

Originally posted by LillydaleMy side? Which side is that? Who else is on it with me? The only thing I am on the side of is truth. If you want to just make up
arguments to have with some non-existent group of people collectively worthy of your derision, do not reply to me when doing so.

What do you mean, "the side you're on is of the truth"? That's the side everyone claims they're on, even the worst of the worst lying sacks of
[censored] like Alex Jones and Dylan Avery. Noone ever says they're out to spread lies.

My contention all along has been with these damned fool 9/11 conspiracy web sites putting out rubbish, and the fact that there are people who actually
believe the crazy claims of "lasers from outer space" and "hologram planes"...or in the case of the OP, "Barry Jennings was murdered for
9/11"...is proof enough that they are being taken seriously. When one of these sources of "the truth" directly contradicts what another source of
"the truth" says, how do you know which one of "the truths" you should believe? What criteria do you yuse to tell who is credible and who is
not?

Depending on how you answer that, it will show right away whether you're on the same side as people like the OP or whether you're not.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What do you mean, "the side you're on is of the truth"? That's the side everyone claims they're on, even the worst of the worst lying sacks of
[censored] like Alex Jones and Dylan Avery. Noone ever says they're out to spread lies.

Of course not. That would hurt gold sales and Jones would be out of business. What did you expect me to say? You called it a "side." Please explain
who else is on my side. When did my side form exactly? Are there rules for my side? Do I need to confer with my side before I post my personal
opinions? Can you answer any of this?

My contention all along..................you're not.

All I hear from you is "damned fool conspiracy sites" and blah blah blah, Dave. Please step up like a man and defend your choice of words. Distract
other people. I asked you something specific based on what you said as if it were a fact.

The NYC firermen helped berry out of the WTC and berry talked about it felt like he was walking on dead bodies.

For someone vehemently opposed to expression of opinions, you're surprisingly relying on Barry's recorded opinion here. The obvious source to clear
this up is the NYC firemen and other first responders who were on site at the time and I've never seen mention of it from them (not to say such
confirmation doesn't exist).

My opinion: Barry (RIP) was not privy to any astounding information that would warrant his 'silencing' and as time goes on, the natural trend of
aging will progressively reduce the numbers of frontline witnesses - it's a normal and expected fact of life.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.